Help with TSA litigation [consolidated thread]
#46
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: Delta Diamond Medallion 1MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, National Car Executive Elite
Posts: 550
OP ETA: Filed.
It asks for quite a lot of records but, IMHO, quite reasonably described — enough to be able to easily find responsive records. (That category includes virtually everything releasable at all, but I figured I might as well not hold back this time.)
Includes all TSA policy & procedure, SEA incident related records, AIT, ETD & patdown testing, etc etc. etc. It's … comprehensive.
It asks for quite a lot of records but, IMHO, quite reasonably described — enough to be able to easily find responsive records. (That category includes virtually everything releasable at all, but I figured I might as well not hold back this time.)
Includes all TSA policy & procedure, SEA incident related records, AIT, ETD & patdown testing, etc etc. etc. It's … comprehensive.
v. all history of similar complaints any TSA, against any TSA, Logan police,
and/or Logan Airport agent
I assume Logan refers to BOS airport?
#47
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Sai, I think there is a copy/paste error in the filing. On page 2, in the section asking for information from the SEA incident, I find this:
v. all history of similar complaints any TSA, against any TSA, Logan police,
and/or Logan Airport agent
I assume Logan refers to BOS airport?
v. all history of similar complaints any TSA, against any TSA, Logan police,
and/or Logan Airport agent
I assume Logan refers to BOS airport?
Won't bother fixing it since it doesn't seem to hurt the request any to leave it in. Please LMK if anything else is messed up.
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
The courts favor government in their decisions and that seems wrong to me. Close decisions should favor citizens, almost all court decisions restrict liberty in some manner.
#50
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
"The Agency Defendants [including the TSA] shall respond to Plaintiff's [Sai's] administrative complaint regarding the incident at San Francisco International Airport on or before January 22, 2016."
The court ordered the TSA to do something, and the motion to dismiss the case was denied (in part). Well done.
#53
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
"Section 504 does not entitle the qualified individual to the precise accommodation he or she seeks, only to some reasonable one."
by reiterating that you were not seeking any unique, individual accommodation but rather what the clear, unambigous, explicit language of their own policy stated you were entitled to have? Namely, medical liquids in sufficient quantity for the reasonable duration of your travel.
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
You do realize that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted (in part) Sai's motion for summary judgment, on December 15, right?
"The Agency Defendants [including the TSA] shall respond to Plaintiff's [Sai's] administrative complaint regarding the incident at San Francisco International Airport on or before January 22, 2016."
The court ordered the TSA to do something, and the motion to dismiss the case was denied (in part). Well done.
"The Agency Defendants [including the TSA] shall respond to Plaintiff's [Sai's] administrative complaint regarding the incident at San Francisco International Airport on or before January 22, 2016."
The court ordered the TSA to do something, and the motion to dismiss the case was denied (in part). Well done.
#55
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
This is a question, not a criticism. Why not respond to
"Section 504 does not entitle the qualified individual to the precise accommodation he or she seeks, only to some reasonable one."
by reiterating that you were not seeking any unique, individual accommodation but rather what the clear, unambigous, explicit language of their own policy stated you were entitled to have? Namely, medical liquids in sufficient quantity for the reasonable duration of your travel.I claim they have no right to stop anyone from traveling with however much they want, when it's distinguishable from WEI or (not and) medically necessary. I rejected the fundamental basis of their claim for needing an individualized decision. They can change their own policy, so debating whether or not their (now probably former) policy allows it or not is moot. I'm going after the legality of the policy itself.
ETA: To put it another way: I categorically reject both the idea that I can be limited to an amount necessary for travel — that was their argument — and that smurfs have any ability whatsoever to determine how much is necessary. I did not ask what you said because doing so would play into their baseless claim.
a) everyone is entitled, enforceably, to get a timely response under the Rehabilitation Act (they claimed that yes they violated it but I can't make them)
b) agency delay of 2.75 years according to their own regulation is per se "unreasonable"
This step of enforcement was to get their answer. Next step, once I get the appeal response, will be to sue them for the policy itself.
Last edited by saizai; Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55 pm
#56
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
They claimed that they're changing the policy because they purport they have a right to stop people from traveling with more liquids than is "necessary" for a flight.
I claim they have no right to stop anyone from traveling with however much they want, when it's distinguishable from WEI or (not and) medically necessary. I rejected the fundamental basis of their claim for needing an individualized decision. They can change their own policy, so debating whether or not their (now probably former) policy allows it or not is moot. I'm going after the legality of the policy itself.
ETA: To put it another way: I categorically reject both the idea that I can be limited to an amount necessary for travel — that was their argument — and that smurfs have any ability whatsoever to determine how much is necessary. I did not ask what you said because doing so would play into their baseless claim.
It's not meaningless to get precedent that
a) everyone is entitled, enforceably, to get a timely response under the Rehabilitation Act (they claimed that yes they violated it but I can't make them)
b) agency delay of 2.75 years according to their own regulation is per se "unreasonable"
This step of enforcement was to get their answer. Next step, once I get the appeal response, will be to sue them for the policy itself.
I claim they have no right to stop anyone from traveling with however much they want, when it's distinguishable from WEI or (not and) medically necessary. I rejected the fundamental basis of their claim for needing an individualized decision. They can change their own policy, so debating whether or not their (now probably former) policy allows it or not is moot. I'm going after the legality of the policy itself.
ETA: To put it another way: I categorically reject both the idea that I can be limited to an amount necessary for travel — that was their argument — and that smurfs have any ability whatsoever to determine how much is necessary. I did not ask what you said because doing so would play into their baseless claim.
It's not meaningless to get precedent that
a) everyone is entitled, enforceably, to get a timely response under the Rehabilitation Act (they claimed that yes they violated it but I can't make them)
b) agency delay of 2.75 years according to their own regulation is per se "unreasonable"
This step of enforcement was to get their answer. Next step, once I get the appeal response, will be to sue them for the policy itself.
tso Patterson at @flyLAXairport said he decides how much milk my infant can drink while traveling.
tso Patterson threatened us and said we could not fly so we ended up having to call @LAAirportPD
Last edited by petaluma1; Jan 19, 2016 at 5:52 am
#57
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
My litigation from the SFO incident is aimed at the heart of this: the notion that TSA has any right to limit people to medical liquids or necessary amounts begin with, or ability to assess medical necessity even if it had the right to.
I am not and have never been interested only in relief that makes things better for me; let's face it, I have a pretty rare condition. If I win, this dies.
Yes, it's taken me 3 years to get this far — formal response — and that's just one step. But I don't plan on stopping any time soon. They messed with the wrong person, too many times. I look forward to adding this to my trophy collection.
#58
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
It is very sad that TSA basically blames Sai. In its response TSA admit that 504 applies, admit Sai was denied his liquids; but then blames Sai.
TSA blame Sai for taking TSA at it published words that there is no size restriction.
TSA blames Sai for him not being reasonable. TSA suggests that its agents were reasonable and were trying to reach a meaningful accommodation, but SAI was the one who hampered the accommodation.
TSA blame Sai for taking TSA at it published words that there is no size restriction.
TSA blames Sai for him not being reasonable. TSA suggests that its agents were reasonable and were trying to reach a meaningful accommodation, but SAI was the one who hampered the accommodation.
#60
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
It is very sad that TSA basically blames Sai. In its response TSA admit that 504 applies, admit Sai was denied his liquids; but then blames Sai.
TSA blame Sai for taking TSA at it published words that there is no size restriction.
TSA blames Sai for him not being reasonable. TSA suggests that its agents were reasonable and were trying to reach a meaningful accommodation, but SAI was the one who hampered the accommodation.
TSA blame Sai for taking TSA at it published words that there is no size restriction.
TSA blames Sai for him not being reasonable. TSA suggests that its agents were reasonable and were trying to reach a meaningful accommodation, but SAI was the one who hampered the accommodation.